The lies of our Socialists running for office will now take center stage

[fallenturtle]

@Optrader

The issue I have with this is that the Federal Government has no capital of its own to invest. All the money the government has is from revenue generated by taxes. The government is just acting as a single agent and “investing” (supposedly) the money owned commonly by the people for the common good, this is the “common regulation” aspect of Socialism. The government is regulated by the common will of the people.

Common regulation doesn’t seem to be a socialism thing: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3156&context=hastings_law_journal
I just skimmed this paper, I might go back and read it, but I think its saying “common regulation” is just government regulation and not necessarily tied to whether or not the economy is socialist, capitalist, or other.

@Optrader

But, I see and concede your point too. Yes, the government is using money for specific things to achieve specific goals, which is capitalism, but then wouldn’t that definition make everything the government does with money make our government capitalists?

But that’s not really capitalism. Capitalism is about profit. Not just any goal. If my goal is to wallpaper my room and I do so by sticking dollar bills to the wall, I’m using money to achieve a goal, but I wouldn’t call that capitalism. When we water down the word is starts to loose its meaning.
When the government takes tax dollars and redistributes it via welfare and progressive taxes, its not making a profit, so its not “capitalism”, its just income “redistribution”.

@Optrader

I think intent and result make the biggest practical difference in the opposing views of liberals and conservatives on the role of government. One view believes the good of the individual is more important, the other believes the good of the masses is more important and both use the government to the greatest extent they can to bring their views about.

Close, but I think you have to keep in mind that on the political spectrum liberals are closer to the middle. The far right believes the individual is more important than the masses. These are your Ayn Rand fans. The typical conservative believes that some individual liberties need to be sacrificed for the greater good (generally social issues like marriage, recreational drugs, abortion, etc) but that in general the individual is more important than the masses. With liberals it starts to lean the otherway. Liberals support a lot more laws and regulations that help the masses over the individual… but they still support the individual over the masses in some ways in regards to personal financial freedoms, the ability to get rich, that sort of stuff. This is why they are “liberals” but the liberty thing does still come into play. The far left is pretty much the masses over the individual, social control of industry, that sort of stuff.

@Optrader

The government can be either or both and they don’t care. They get rich and stay in power either way

I think it can be argued that the more left the government is, the less “getting rich” plays a factor. Power is always an issue which is why its important to have minority rights and a government with checks and balances.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

I wrote in answer to your question: "…according to Chief Justice White in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO(1916), ” by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . . “ And I agree! Congress always had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from “incomes”, and without having to apportion such a tax! If you don’t believe me, study Flint vs. Stone Tracy which was decided before the 16th Amendment, and upheld a tax calculated from income as not requiring an apportionment.

Great, now we know what you think was the situation before the 16th Amendment, now John, what do you think the 16th Amendment changed?

You are not paying attention.

To find your answer, read what you quoted from me above, very, very slowly, especially that part in which I stated I agree with the court when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I then went on to document a case, before the 16th Amendment was adopted, in which the court upheld an un-apportioned tax calculated from income, establishing the court was correct when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I suggest you study Flint vs Stone Tracy to learn why the tax there was considered an “indirect tax” and did not require apportionment in spite of the Constitution’s command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

JWK

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began an un-apportioned direct tax on the property which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

Wrong. It is you who ignore what is self-evident, and cling to a contemporary misrepresentation of the core meaning of capitalism and capitalist…

It’s not a “contemporary misrepresentation”. I’m using the word capitalism as its been defined over the last 150 or so years. You’re the one misrepresenting it.

@johnwk2

Another example of an intentional desire to evade the meaning of a word is the contemporary use of “gay”, which is incorrectly used in place of “sexual deviant”, or “homosexual”. I do not embrace attempts to sugar coat, or evade what is, by misapplying the meaning of words. You do. And you are free to do so.

Clearly you aren’t well versed on the history of the word “gay”. It’s use in regards to “immorality” goes back much farther than apparently you realized:

The word may have started to acquire associations of immorality as early as the 14th century, but had certainly acquired them by the 17th. By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of “addicted to pleasures and dissipations”, an extension of its primary meaning of “carefree” implying “uninhibited by moral constraints”. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel.

source: Gay - Wikipedia

@johnwk2

I will continue to use language in a manner which actually projects subtle distinctions which others attempt to evade.

Oh, you mean make up your own terms and use other terms differently than what they mean. Its not like we rely on a common language to help understand each other, or anything.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

But that’s not really capitalism. Capitalism is about profit.

The investment of capital is not always for profit. Sometimes capitalists invest money to enjoy the pleasures of life. Other times capital is invested to achieve specific goals, such as personal protection. And Obama’s investment in green energy was allegedly to accomplish a goal …save the earth from climate change. Have you forgotten this “goal”?

The fact is, capitalism can also be practiced by governments, as in Obama’s green energy swindling operation in which taxpayer "capital’ was "invested’ by Obama in a money laundering operation in which 80 percent of the capital invested went to Obama’s donors. See : 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.

A free market, free enterprise system by contrast is marked by people being free to pursue their own economic interests, without government preferences, and includes the creation of wealth through agriculture, manufacturing, scientific discoveries, etc., and in most cases is assisted by the investment of capital in such ventures, but being free of government creating special preferences.

Jefferson was spot on when saying: ”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”

JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to folks in government to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

You are not paying attention.

To find your answer, read what you quoted from me above, very, very slowly, especially that part in which I stated I agree with the court when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I then went on to document a case, before the 16th Amendment was adopted, in which the court upheld an un-apportioned tax calculated from income, establishing the court was correct when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

OK, so your answer is that the 16th Amendment "prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation.”

Glad we could clear that up.

@johnwk2

I suggest you study Flint vs Stone Tracy to learn why the tax there was considered an “indirect tax” and did not require apportionment in spite of the Constitution’s command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

I’ll do that.

@johnwk2

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began an un-apportioned direct tax on the property which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?

You are not paying attention.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

You are not paying attention.

To find your answer, read what you quoted from me above, very, very slowly, especially that part in which I stated I agree with the court when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I then went on to document a case, before the 16th Amendment was adopted, in which the court upheld an un-apportioned tax calculated from income, establishing the court was correct when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

OK, so your answer is that the 16th Amendment "prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation.

Well, isn’t that cute? So, now you are going to misrepresent what I wrote.

JWK
The right to keep and bear is specifically intended to maintain an armed citizenry capable to defend itself against a despotic government.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

Oh, you mean make up your own terms …

Your insulting charge is without foundation. Attack the post, not the poster!

cap·i·tal

/ˈkapədl/

noun

wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.

“rates of return on invested capital were high”

synonyms: money, finance(s), funds, the wherewithal, the means, assets, wealth, resources, reserves

ism:

A productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc .

JWK

In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

The investment of capital is not always for profit. Sometimes capitalists invest money to enjoy the pleasures of life. Other times capital is invested to achieve specific goals, such as personal protection.

The ultimate goal of investing money is to make a profit… then those profits can be used to enjoy the pleasures of life. Even if the money is invested for “personal protection” the mechanism of investment is designed to turn a profit.

@johnwk2

And Obama’s investment in green energy was allegedly to accomplish a goal …save the earth from climate change. Have you forgotten this “goal”?

If the investment was to make profit for the government, then its state capitalism.
If the investment was to protect the planet, then its just a subsidy and part of us being a mixed economy.
If the investment was to make profit for private citizens, like you are implying, then its crony capitalism.

@johnwk2

A free market, free enterprise system by contrast is marked by people being free to pursue their own economic interests, without government preferences, and includes the creation of wealth through agriculture, manufacturing, scientific discoveries, etc., and in most cases is assisted by the investment of capital in such ventures, but being free of government creating special preferences.

A free-market system also leads to massive income inequality and economic depressions. Regulation is needed for a healthy market and society.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

Oh, you mean make up your own terms …

Your insulting charge is without foundation. Attack the post, not the poster!

cap·i·tal

/ˈkapədl/

noun

wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.

“rates of return on invested capital were high”

synonyms: money, finance(s), funds, the wherewithal, the means, assets, wealth, resources, reserves

ism:

A productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc .

JWK

In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.

You laid the foundation. We’ve been over this… words are not that simple. You can’t always depend on the roots of a word to fully define the word. Kind of like how socialism doesn’t mean anything involving people or being social.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

You are not paying attention.

To find your answer, read what you quoted from me above, very, very slowly, especially that part in which I stated I agree with the court when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I then went on to document a case, before the 16th Amendment was adopted, in which the court upheld an un-apportioned tax calculated from income, establishing the court was correct when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

OK, so your answer is that the 16th Amendment "prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation.

Well, isn’t that cute? So, now you are going to misrepresent what I wrote.

JWK
The right to keep and bear is specifically intended to maintain an armed citizenry capable to defend itself against a despotic government.

If you don’t want to be misrepresented, then answer questions clearly. Since you refused to answer the question, I had to make assumptions. I figured it was a safe assumption considering its part of the same darn sentence you agree with:

…by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

Clearly you aren’t well versed on the history of the word “gay”. It’s use in regards to “immorality” goes back much farther than apparently you realized:

So now you are charging me with your own deficiency.

In regard to the word “gay” being used domestically with reference to homosexuality, it began appearing about the late 1920s to mid 30s. By the mid 50s to 60s it was popularly used to avoid using homosexual…

BTW, I have my own library, and a number of very old dictionaries which confirm my findings, in addition to researching this very issue while on the campus of the University of Maryland during the 1980s and mid 90s.

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.*

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

So now you are charging me with your own deficiency.

In regard to the word “gay” being used domestically with reference to homosexuality, it began appearing about the late 1920s to mid 30s. By the mid 50s to 60s it was popularly used to avoid using homosexual…

Are you saying that the Wikipedia article is wrong?

@johnwk2

BTW, I have my own library, and a number of very old dictionaries which confirm my findings, in addition to researching this very issue while on the campus of the University of Maryland during the 1980s and mid 90s.

Then reference the books you’re using so we can look it up.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

You are not paying attention.

To find your answer, read what you quoted from me above, very, very slowly, especially that part in which I stated I agree with the court when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

I then went on to document a case, before the 16th Amendment was adopted, in which the court upheld an un-apportioned tax calculated from income, establishing the court was correct when it wrote “… the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”

OK, so your answer is that the 16th Amendment "prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation.

Well, isn’t that cute? So, now you are going to misrepresent what I wrote.

JWK
The right to keep and bear is specifically intended to maintain an armed citizenry capable to defend itself against a despotic government.

If you don’t want to be misrepresented, then answer questions clearly. Since you refused to answer the question, I had to make assumptions.

I answered the question in crystal clear language. You asked: Okay, lets flip this around… what power do you think the 16th Amendment grants?

In answer to your question I wrote "…:to answer your question, according to Chief Justice White in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO(1916), ” by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . . “ And I agree! "

The provisions of 16th amendment granted no new power of taxation!

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

[fallenturtle]

See: The lies of our Socialists running for office will now take center stage - #299 by fallenturtle

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

See: The lies of our Socialists running for office will now take center stage - #299 by fallenturtle

Try paying attention. STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO was decided after the 16th amendment was adopted.

And, I agree with Chief Justice White when he wrote "…by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . . “

JWK

The Democrat Leadership wants elderly American citizens, who paid into Medicare all their lives, to surrender their healthcare to the millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

[johnwk2]

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

So now you are charging me with your own deficiency.

In regard to the word “gay” being used domestically with reference to homosexuality, it began appearing about the late 1920s to mid 30s. By the mid 50s to 60s it was popularly used to avoid using homosexual…

Are you saying that the Wikipedia article is wrong?

I said nothing about Wikipedia. Are you hallucinating?

JWK

You know an un-American political operative is talking when that person refers to “anti-immigrant rhetoric”, rather than anti-illegal immigration, which is really what is objected to.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

See: The lies of our Socialists running for office will now take center stage - #299 by fallenturtle

Try paying attention. STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO was decided after the 16th amendment was adopted.

And, I agree with Chief Justice White when he wrote "…by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . . “

JWK

The Democrat Leadership wants elderly American citizens, who paid into Medicare all their lives, to surrender their healthcare to the millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

Try paying attention… I’m asking what the 16th Amendment did, not what it didn’t do. Let’s try it this way maybe it’ll be easier for us all:
Statement: “johnwk2 believes that the 16th amendment had no effect on anything and does nothing at all and is meaningless”

Is this statement true or false?
If true, then why was is added to the Constitution?
If false, then what did it do?

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but capitalism at least allows poor and middle class people to join the ranks of the wealthy through their own efforts, abilities, resources and opportunities.

A socialist would ask how the capitalists got rich to begin with?

“Capitalism”, as it is called, is only 200 or so years old. In some ways, life was better during the Middle Ages. There was no commercial republics or spiritually mutilated communities.

[fallenturtle]

Do you not understand context? I provided some information about the word gay and included a source from wikipedia. You said I was being deficient… If I’m being deficient and the source of what I posted is from wikipedia, then you’re saying wikipedia is being deficient.

[Optrader]

@fallenturtle

@Optrader

The issue I have with this is that the Federal Government has no capital of its own to invest. All the money the government has is from revenue generated by taxes. The government is just acting as a single agent and “investing” (supposedly) the money owned commonly by the people for the common good, this is the “common regulation” aspect of Socialism. The government is regulated by the common will of the people.

Common regulation doesn’t seem to be a socialism thing: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3156&context=hastings_law_journal
I just skimmed this paper, I might go back and read it, but I think its saying “common regulation” is just government regulation and not necessarily tied to whether or not the economy is socialist, capitalist, or other.

@Optrader

But, I see and concede your point too. Yes, the government is using money for specific things to achieve specific goals, which is capitalism, but then wouldn’t that definition make everything the government does with money make our government capitalists?

But that’s not really capitalism. Capitalism is about profit. Not just any goal. If my goal is to wallpaper my room and I do so by sticking dollar bills to the wall, I’m using money to achieve a goal, but I wouldn’t call that capitalism. When we water down the word is starts to loose its meaning.
When the government takes tax dollars and redistributes it via welfare and progressive taxes, its not making a profit, so its not “capitalism”, its just income “redistribution”.

@Optrader

I think intent and result make the biggest practical difference in the opposing views of liberals and conservatives on the role of government. One view believes the good of the individual is more important, the other believes the good of the masses is more important and both use the government to the greatest extent they can to bring their views about.

Close, but I think you have to keep in mind that on the political spectrum liberals are closer to the middle. The far right believes the individual is more important than the masses. These are your Ayn Rand fans. The typical conservative believes that some individual liberties need to be sacrificed for the greater good (generally social issues like marriage, recreational drugs, abortion, etc) but that in general the individual is more important than the masses. With liberals it starts to lean the otherway. Liberals support a lot more laws and regulations that help the masses over the individual… but they still support the individual over the masses in some ways in regards to personal financial freedoms, the ability to get rich, that sort of stuff. This is why they are “liberals” but the liberty thing does still come into play. The far left is pretty much the masses over the individual, social control of industry, that sort of stuff.

@Optrader

The government can be either or both and they don’t care. They get rich and stay in power either way

I think it can be argued that the more left the government is, the less “getting rich” plays a factor. Power is always an issue which is why its important to have minority rights and a government with checks and balances.

I have to go with John here. I agree, when we think of capitalism, we think profit first, but there are other things besides money that can be considered capital and used for a specific purpose. Anything that adds value to a business can be considered capital, and sometimes something other than profit is the goal.

I get that capitalism pertains to economics, but I view capitalism as a freedom that relies on all of our other freedoms to use. When one freedom is infringed upon, all our freedoms are diminished. Socialism diminishes freedom, and therefore capitalism because it takes away peoples choice of how they will use their own capital and the fruits of their labor.

The founding fathers laid out the functions of government very clearly. Providing free food, housing, healthcare or anything else is NOT a government function! Securing the blessings of liberty so we can gain these things for ourselves is.